Alex Joseph 11 March 2010 HIST 4023 Journal 5 How did some authors attempt to argue for the political inclusion of women? How do they justify allowing such a thing? Some authors attempted to argue for the political inclusion of women through visual documentation. Through different visual mediums, such as paintings, pottery, fabrics, engravings, stationary, etc., these authors depicted the inclusion of women among the Revolutionary crowd - to the dismay of many men, no less. Many visual documents focused on popular uprisings with which women were most visibly involved. This seemed to work very fine, as Landes points out, ?feminists have benefited from the growing acceptance of visual sources in historical research.? How did some authors argue against the political inclusion of anyone not a white male (and possibly not all white males at that)? Some authors argued against the political inclusion of women also through visual documentation. Some photos (Image 6, in this case) depicted women as Amazonians, taking over, leading the march ? One way to look at this was from the positive perspective, even a woman can ?be on top?; however, others looked at it a completely different way, as Landes points out: However, from another perspective, the connection is far less casual, given the frequent charge by the opposition that among the marchers were loose women, prostitutes. Also, the woman astride the cannon suggests the threatening usurpation of male power so routinely attributed to Amazonian femmes-hommes: monstrous, unnatural women who have stepped outside of their proper place. Viewed this way, the skirts and modest attire of these women only partially conceal their phallic threat. (Landes:11) They argued that the political inclusion of women would begin the taking over of the men in politics, and this was just wrong. Who wants to go against the norms? Again, in image 19, the political inclusion of women is depicted in a highly negative fashion ? used as a warning of the ?disturbing implications? of women in politics to the French and Germans. In this image, women are old, with hag-like features. They carry pitchforks and dress ready for combat, while with wearing mean expressions on their faces. These ?fishwives,? as Landes refers to them, are holding ?Liberty? hostage, and only repressing their own freedom. If women were excluded politically, and their activism viewed, at least in artistic representation, with trepidation, then why are all of the symbolic representations of the French Revolutionary state female? (Landes article; images to go with text on D2L as well). Women were represented in art to symbolize separate dynamics. One of these representations is ?Liberty,? who many of the images are depicting. Liberty is an attractive female ? ?she? depicts innocence that ?allows her to stand before the German public as a woman?; however, once this is actually enacted on by a woman of the popular class, ?she is portrayed as a sinister, coarse-looking fishwife.? It was easier to represent symbols with women, due to the fact that it was easier to, well, turn them into fishwife if need be. Also, men didn?t really embody the innocence that many artists wanted to represent. To go along with this, women also represented upheaval/mayhem/etc. Landes writes, ?The setting of political upheaval and violence, and the link between women and the crowd, reinforces inherited notions of unruliness attributed to the people and women.? (Landes:15)
